Api chat questionnaire runs mapping partial update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation persists the user's mapping choice for a specific run, which is useful mutation context and is consistent with the write annotation. It does not add permissions, side effects, or return behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The action and target are stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation endpoint with no output schema, the description is too sparse about how the mapping choice is supplied. It says the tool persists a mapping choice, but the only parameter is id, so an agent cannot tell what data is being persisted or how to invoke the operation correctly beyond identifying a run.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that id identifies the questionnaire run, nor does it mention the mapping payload at all; in fact, it describes persisting a column-mapping choice even though the schema exposes no mapping field. This leaves the agent with an unclear relationship between the documented action and the actual parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ("Persist") and a concrete resource ("the user's column-mapping choice for this run"), which distinguishes it from the generic questionnaire-runs update tools. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling runs_partial_update or runs_update tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "for this run" implies the tool should be used during an active questionnaire run when a column mapping has been chosen, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. In a family with generic runs_partial_update and runs_update siblings, the lack of routing guidance is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.